[quote]yeahbuddy86 wrote:
A pretty interesting article about what a natural bodybuilder can attain in lean body mass and measurements based on wrist and ankle size.
Any thoughts that would disprove this would be interesting to hear.
http://www.weightrainer.net/potential.html [/quote]
The guy who wrote that has serious insecurity issues… I dont believe in putting limits on myself and neither should you.
Performing a statistical analysis of drug-free bodybuilder’s stats does not indicate an insecurity problem. How anyone could draw that conclusion is beyond me. Not having the maturity to accept reality for what it is however, certainly is a sign of insecurity issues. As is posting under a fake name and using cartoon characters as your avatar.
I didn’t put limitations on anybody in writing that article …nature did that. I simply quantified it in a meaningful and useful way. Dealing with that does require a minimum level of maturity and intelligence that many seem to be lacking.
From your profile you’re obviously a young beginner who has a lot to learn about the Iron Game. Juvenille talk about not putting limitations on yourself is wonderful, and in truth I agree with that attitude. However, it doesn’t change reality. It’s highly unlikely that you’ll ever reach the level of development described in that article. In 10 years or so you’ll realize that’s the truth.
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
The guy who wrote that has serious insecurity issues… I dont believe in putting limits on myself and neither should you.
Performing a statistical analysis of drug-free bodybuilder’s stats does not indicate an insecurity problem. How anyone could draw that conclusion is beyond me. Not having the maturity to accept reality for what it is however, certainly is a sign of insecurity issues. As is posting under a fake name and using cartoon characters as your avatar.
I didn’t put limitations on anybody in writing that article …nature did that. I simply quantified it in a meaningful and useful way. Dealing with that does require a minimum level of maturity and intelligence that many seem to be lacking.
From your profile you’re obviously a young beginner who has a lot to learn about the Iron Game. Juvenille talk about not putting limitations on yourself is wonderful, and in truth I agree with that attitude. However, it doesn’t change reality. It’s highly unlikely that you’ll ever reach the level of development described in that article. In 10 years or so you’ll realize that’s the truth.
[/quote]
Ever the inspirer. The world needs more people like you…so that no one ever believes they can achieve too much.
Ok, I skipped over maybe like 5 pages.
doesn’t everyone know that 98% of all statistics are made up?
Have any of the authors of this site chimed in on this? CT, CS, etc?
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
The guy who wrote that has serious insecurity issues… I dont believe in putting limits on myself and neither should you.
Performing a statistical analysis of drug-free bodybuilder’s stats does not indicate an insecurity problem. How anyone could draw that conclusion is beyond me. Not having the maturity to accept reality for what it is however, certainly is a sign of insecurity issues. As is posting under a fake name and using cartoon characters as your avatar.
I didn’t put limitations on anybody in writing that article …nature did that. I simply quantified it in a meaningful and useful way. Dealing with that does require a minimum level of maturity and intelligence that many seem to be lacking.
From your profile you’re obviously a young beginner who has a lot to learn about the Iron Game. Juvenille talk about not putting limitations on yourself is wonderful, and in truth I agree with that attitude. However, it doesn’t change reality. It’s highly unlikely that you’ll ever reach the level of development described in that article. In 10 years or so you’ll realize that’s the truth.
[/quote]
Care to comment about Lockett?
I don’t think anyone (at least I know I am not) is suggesting that your statistical analysis doesn’t apply to the bodybuilders who you developed your equation from. What people are questioning is, “are those people truly the absolute potential of human muscular development?”
That is the issue that people like Lockett bring up. Your equation simply does not apply to him (for the reasons I stated in my previous post). If your equation truly does accurately predict maximal potential bodyweight, then someone like Lockett could not exist. Yet he does.
ok, I did the math for shits and giggles.
I think my math is spot on.
5’8
183 lbs
15% BF
Ankle 8.5
wrist 6.75
based on the calculations it shows
166 lbs lean mass
with a total bodyweight of 184 lbs at 10% BF
Umm, I’ve been training for a while, but only in the last 3 months have I been serious with training AND nutrition.
I expect to surpass these so called calculations.
Are my calculations off, or is this formula that worthless?
Hey everybody! Im as muscular as i can possibly be! I QUIT WORKING OUT!!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Scotacus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
What we are saying is that excluding every other athlete regardless of their extreme development simply because they aren’t specifically “bodybuilders who compete” should mean to anyone paying attention that these calculations shouldn’t apply to anyone but “bodybuilders who compete”. That means it can’t in any way be some oracle as to who has the genetics for that type of development. Why? Because it ONLY applies to “bodybuilders who compete” and obviously not “bodybuilders who don’t compete”.
Now, since that makes no fucking sense and it makes even less sense to attach a calculator to it to see where you stand IF IT DOESN’T APPLY TO ANYONE BUT BODYBUILDERS WHO ALREADY COMPETE and not anyone who has ever performed in any other sport as that apparently disqualifies you from these measurements, none of this shit applies to potential bodybuilders.
It disqualifies itself by insisting on such a limited and specific field of individuals.[/quote]
I missed this earlier.
this reply is gold, and should be the 2nd reply in this thread. well said
A few comments about Lockett:
He has huge joints for his height (his wrist appears to be over 8"). Using the equations for people of his build from the booklet that article is based on, puts him at about 221 at 12% in the off-season.
Lockett has not competed in a drug-tested event. The only evidence that he’s drug-free are his own claims. (Ronnie Coleman also claimed to be drug-free well into his professional career.) He was possibly drug-free when he competed at 198 in 2005, but he certainly was not drug-free as of 2007. Until Lockett competes in a drug-tested event he can’t be assumed to be drug-free. So you are correct, the equations do not apply to his 2007 (drug-assisted) condition.
When you do so you can post your photos along with your name.
Congratulations! You’re carrying as much muscle for your structure as the pros. Please post your photos and real name so we can see.
Jehovasfitness, the arguments in that post are nonsensical, serving only to delude someone who, for one personal reason or another, can’t accept reality as it is. It would make no sense to base an analysis of bodybuilders on any group of athletes other than bodybuilders. It is equally nonsensical to think that non-competitors are better than history’s top champions.
did you ever reply to the rebuttal about why only single out natural BBers?
what makes any other human involved in another sport or even no sport at all, not part of the “rules”?
think about it.
As mentioned a rugby player can easily surpass your calculations but because he’s not a natural BBer you say it doesn’t count? Why not, both are people, both are still held by genetic potential.
I don’t even know why I’m wasting time with this, you’re obviously going with blinders on.
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
A few comments about Lockett:
He has huge joints for his height (his wrist appears to be over 8"). Using the equations for people of his build from the booklet that article is based on, puts him at about 221 at 12% in the off-season.
Lockett has not competed in a drug-tested event. The only evidence that he’s drug-free are his own claims. (Ronnie Coleman also claimed to be drug-free well into his professional career.) He was possibly drug-free when he competed at 198 in 2005, but he certainly was not drug-free as of 2007. Until Lockett competes in a drug-tested event he can’t be assumed to be drug-free. So you are correct, the equations do not apply to his 2007 (drug-assisted) condition.
[/quote]
But he HAS been drug tested several times, all of which he passed (2006 “Vyotech Nutritionals” NPC Natural Ohio (open) Drug Tested Bodybuilding & Figure Championships, 2006 NPC Team Universe Championships). He has also taken several polygraphs (which he passed with flying colors) in which he has stated that he NEVER took any anabolics.
Finally, like I said before, he has only been training for a fraction of what you yourself said it generally takes one to reach their potential (which I agree with you, it takes quite a while). So, even if he does have big wrists and ankles for his size (still not big enough to accurately predict his on stage bodyweight and bf%), then we’d also have to assume that he’s somehow been able to get 15 years worth of progress into a little over 3.
But honestly I’d say that conclusion would be much more of a leap of faith than believing that he just might be an exception to your formula and re-enforce some of the questions that we have brought up.
Thanks for responding.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Casey Butt wrote:
A few comments about Lockett:
He has huge joints for his height (his wrist appears to be over 8"). Using the equations for people of his build from the booklet that article is based on, puts him at about 221 at 12% in the off-season.
Lockett has not competed in a drug-tested event. The only evidence that he’s drug-free are his own claims. (Ronnie Coleman also claimed to be drug-free well into his professional career.) He was possibly drug-free when he competed at 198 in 2005, but he certainly was not drug-free as of 2007. Until Lockett competes in a drug-tested event he can’t be assumed to be drug-free. So you are correct, the equations do not apply to his 2007 (drug-assisted) condition.
But he HAS been drug tested several times, all of which he passed (2006 “Vyotech Nutritionals” NPC Natural Ohio (open) Drug Tested Bodybuilding & Figure Championships, 2006 NPC Team Universe Championships). He has also taken several polygraphs (which he passed with flying colors) in which he has stated that he NEVER took any anabolics.
Finally, like I said before, he has only been training for a fraction of what you yourself said it generally takes one to reach their potential (which I agree with you, it takes quite a while). So, even if he does have big wrists and ankles for his size (still not big enough to accurately predict his on stage bodyweight and bf%), then we’d also have to assume that he’s somehow been able to get 15 years worth of progress into a little over 3.
But honestly I’d say that conclusion would be much more of a leap of faith than believing that he just might be an exception to your formula and re-enforce some of the questions that we have brought up.
Thanks for responding.[/quote]
It is a little ridiculous that anyone who exceeds his measurements gets immediately labeled as “invalid”. Obviously, he has set a cap on genetics and won’t accept that anyone can pass it. That isn’t science. Science doesn’t set the boundary and then try to discredit anyone who passes it. It tries to see if there is a boundary at all.
Sentoguy,
I have a problem accepting Lockett’s drug-free claim at this stage of his development …for a few reasons.
Number One is he’s 244 at 5’9" very lean. If that’s true he is a gross statistical anomaly even among champions. He carries more muscle than most heavy anabolic drug-users at his height. To believe that he is doing that “unassisted” is rather naive.
I don’t know his stats as of the 2006 competition. I don’t know what anabolics he was on that could be masked or cleared out of his system in time for the test. I don’t know whether his sudden weight gain came after that competition or before. As I said, his 2005 competition weight of 198 was quite possibly drug-free.
My suspicion is that he is an extremely large-boned, extremely gifted individual who quickly rose through the ranks and got attention as a drug-free trainee. Sometime in the past year or so he has started on anabolics and hence his current development.
But all that aside, even if he is clean (which he most certainly is not as of his present condition), he is an extreme statistical outlier even amoung the genetically super-gifted. Expecting to have similar potential as such a person would be the same as thinking you’re the next Michael Jordon, Wayne Gretzky or Isaac Newton.
I know there are people reading this with psychological resistance to accepting limitations borne from their own personal delusions. However, nickel and diming inappropriate points, and clutching at straws, in an effort to preserve one’s fantasies will not alter the fact that the equations of that article describe and accurately predict the development of almost every world champion drug-tested bodybuilder (at the time of their title wins) in the past 60 years. That has nothing to do with my own personal training experience, desires, or whatever. As I said before, it is not my concern how people deal with reality.
As for Rugby players and the like: Yes, they are typically heavily muscled individuals, but in proportion to their bone structures they do not carry more muscle, at low body fat levels, as top bodybuilders. That’s simply a consequence of the fact that they do not purposefully train for maximum proportional muscle development throughout their bodies. Such people are dealt with in the booklet that article was excerpted from, but are not the intended target of the internet article.
I may sound like a nerd…but in my spare time I read hundreds of training articles, both about training naturally and with steriods/supplements.
If what this person is saying true…that we can only achieve a certain amount naturally…then I question their PhD.
Do steriods give us a boost of protein? As far as I am aware they recover the muscle quicker to train more. Isn’t that what natural bodybuilders do? Let the muscle recover and the train it again.
The difference between steriods and natural is the time it takes to achieve your goals. It’s all in the mind. Anything can be achieved if you deem it possible.
In other words…this person is clearly someone who has read a few books and deems themselves an expert on training rather than actually training at any point in their lifetime.
Dipshit…
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Number One is he’s 244 at 5’9" very lean. If that’s true he is a gross statistical anomaly even among champions. He carries more muscle than most heavy anabolic drug-users at his height. To believe that he is doing that “unassisted” is rather naive.
[/quote]
I don’t disagree with your point about him being an anomaly. He most certainly is. But, there could potentially be others like him out there as well, who simply choose to pursue more lucrative careers (football for example). My point in bringing him up was to simply offer an example of someone who the formula does not apply in order to lend credence to the notion that those natural bodybuilding champions of the past were not in fact the upper limitation of human genetic potential for muscle mass.
Believing that he is “unassisted” is not naive. So far he’s passed every drug test he’s taken. You yourself said that until he competes and wins in a natural show then one cannot say he is natural. But he has, so doesn’t that mean by your own definition that he is?
Seriously, now you are the one grasping at straws. He passed his drug tests, according to YOUR stipulations on what makes someone natural, he is natural. If you want to bring up the masking agents and “cleared out of the system” scapegoats, then one could also say that about every single “natural” champion since the 1940’s, which pretty much calls the vast, vast majority of your statistical evidence into question.
His 2006 competition weight was 230 lbs on stage, which once again puts him beyond the formula. He was 244 lbs on stage in 2007. If you want to say that he’s “no longer” natural in 2007 condition due to him not having tested in 2007 (to the best of my knowledge), then ok, I don’t have evidence to the contrary, so I can’t say for sure otherwise. But, in 2006 he was still beyond the limitations of your formula, and DID test negative for steroids at that condition.
Look at his pictures, he is not extremely large-boned (he’s not small boned either, but he’s not disproportionately large boned). Extremely gifted on the other hand, yeah I’d agree with that. Whether or not he has started taking anabolics since his 2006 wins, I can’t say for certain. He claims that he hasn’t and judging by the fact that he has been training for such a short period of time, I don’t think it’s all that impossible to believe that he hasn’t. He also was telling the truth when he said he was natural in the past, so why couldn’t it be true that he is still natural (which he claims to be).
How can you say that “he most certainly is not (natural) as of his present condition”? You have no evidence to support that claim.
And yes, I agree he is a genetically super-gifted individual, and very few other people are going to have that type of potential. But, once again, if there are people who can achieve that level, then shouldn’t that at least cause you to adjust your formula? And doesn’t it still add credit to what some of us have been saying about what is and is not possible?
Well, it’s a funny thing about beliefs, many times they DO hinder one’s potential as much as one’s physicality. For instance, prior to Pat Casey doing so in 1967, no one had ever benched 600 lbs raw. Until that happened, many people thought that it was impossible. However, since Casey achieved that feat 47 other people have also achieved that feat.
Coincidence? Maybe, but more likely it was due to the fact that once people actually saw the feat accomplished, they now no longer believed that it was impossible. Now they believed that it was possible and consequently you had others matching (and surpassing) Casey’s mark.
Most times, the people that achieve truly groundbreaking results are those who refuse to believe the limitations placed on them by others. So, if someone wants to believe that the sky is the limit in terms of their muscle building potential, then I personally say more power to them.
Finally, once again, I’m not calling into question the accuracy with which your equation predicts the natural champions of the past. What I am questioning is whether or not those champions truly were the pinnacle of human muscular potential and thus are accurate measuring sticks with which to measure potential human muscle mass. Lockett, however gifted he may be, is an example of someone with superior genetics for muscle mass than the natural champions of the past (by your own accord). To think that there might be more like him out there who will never choose to step onto a stage isn’t that far fetched of an idea.
[quote]
As for Rugby players and the like: Yes, they are typically heavily muscled individuals, but in proportion to their bone structures they do not carry more muscle, at low body fat levels, as top bodybuilders. That’s simply a consequence of the fact that they do not purposefully train for maximum proportional muscle development throughout their bodies. Such people are dealt with in the booklet that article was excerpted from, but are not the intended target of the internet article.[/quote]
Doesn’t this somewhat support my observation that the measurements gathered from the study were influenced by a specific aesthetic ideal? As in the champions of the past (especially the Golden Era guys) were after not so much maximal muscular bodyweight, but more so an “ideal” balanced, symmetrical, proportional, muscular physique.
Casey
I remember you years ago on the old HGRT!
Anyway, true or not, I choose not to read the article. Nor do I put much faith in psychic readers to predict my future, grim or otherwise.
I’m going with “Ignorance is bliss”. Besides, it’s fun to dream big.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
a well thought out response that he clearly spent way more time on than I ever would have…and he should be commended for it.[/quote]
I seriously can’t believe a true “scientist” would try to argue with what you’ve written here. We are clearly dealing with someone who wants to MAKE the rules instead of admitting that he doesn’t have the answer to all limitations involving bodybuilding.
My only worry is that newbies will fall for this and wrongly assume they can’t achieve what they just might be able to.
Lockett’s drug status is the subject of many bodybuilding forum debates and I have no intention of being drawn into one further. The realitive size of his bone structure is clearly huge. The fact that you don’t see that tells me that you have little experience in taking and analyzing such measurements. However, nothing will be “solved” regarding Lockett on an internet discussion board. If you wish to believe he is carrying a natural 244 lbs at 5’9" then feel free …most of the bodybuilding industry is built on misleading naive people.
But I will say this: Lockett will not compete in any legitimate drug-tested organization with his current level of development. He may continue to claim his drug-free status (as many others have done), but you won’t see him on a WNBF stage anytime soon.
I have said this before quite clearly: Numerous, recent high-level champions were included in the analysis leading to those equations. It is as applicable to modern era champions (i.e. Dave Goodin, John Harris, Layne Norton, etc) as it is to “old-timers”. Bodybuilders of all eras chased maximum muscular size in combination with aesthetic proportion. It is nonsensical to bring football, rugby players, etc, into a debate about an article that was never intended to apply to them.
“premium.fitness”, you need to grow up.
Most posts on this have been by very experienced trainees with reason to question these “limits”, and concerns about the effect on newbie motivation from reading this. I’ve only been training for a year. I liked the article. I look at it as a convenient description of the physiques of the best Golden Age bodybuilders, which is a look I would be happy to achieve. I’m not comfortable asking muscular men at the gym how much they weigh, so I can only guess how much more muscle I’ll need to gain to get a particular visual effect. This data fit is helpful in that regard, and just generally interesting. I think the experienced guys already have a good feel for this, but I don’t. It’s a little surprising how low my predicted “maximum” weight is, and I certainly wouldn’t stop short at that weight if I hit it. Maybe I’m fatter than caliper measurements say. In any case, I find it to be positive motivation - maybe I’m not so many pounds of muscle away from a standout physique as I’d thought. I think the criticisms by Sentoguy and others are valid, but I still think it’s a useful article.
MarkT,
I’d like to add to this that there’s a lot more to a great physique than just weights and measurements. Low body fat and balanced muscular development are extremely important for most people to look impressive without drugs. A few pounds - in the right places - can make a huge difference to a physique. Oftentimes, it’s just that that makes the difference between the champion and the also-ran.
By the way, caliper equations tend to underestimate body fat in people with above “normal” levels of lean body mass.
You have a very “healthy” attitude …exactly how the article and booklet should be interpreted.